robsta23 Reviews

Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

Bearable

[6/10 · 17 March 2016]

Kung Fu Panda 3 meets the minimum requirements in what fans of the first two films would expect: jokes about weight, Po's still struggling with handling Kung Fu (even though he became the "dragon warrior" at the end of the first film) and questions of how to determine what true family is. Sadly, the film itself lazily meets these expectations without providing much else for its fan base.

We start with an uninteresting villain played by J.K. Simmons. He is an associate of Master Oogway, and that is how he is known (this joke gets really old really fast within the film itself). He manages to escape the spirit realm (this universe's equivalent of the afterlife) and is determined to take over the spirits of kung fu masters because.... well who cares? The film simply establishes he is a bad guy who wants revenge and to have control over the real world - you know, your typical one-dimensional children's movie villain.

Po's father, played by Bryan Cranston, finds him at the start of the film, which is really convenient because pandas are supposed to know about something called "chi" which is what the villain is after. Pandas were known to heal Oogway with this power in the past, and it is of course the only way to stop Simmons' character. This subplot eventually clears up what we did not know about the pandas in this universe, and of course the film goes to great lengths to make comedy out of how lazy pandas turn out to be.

The jokes used in this film are just rehashed jokes from the first two films, not providing great comedy as its predecessors since it proves to be unoriginal. Kung Fu Panda 3 is still enjoyable, but its strength lies on the theme of questionable identity posed by the two competing fathers of the film: Mr. Ping and Li. This is only touched on a few times throughout the film, but when it is touched on it brings up interesting questions about whether Po would need nature or nurture: that is, does he need his biological father or the one who raised him. These moments are the only ones of great intrigue within the film.

There is also a return to a cop-out fighting technique from the first film that makes the conflict of the story less difficult for Po to get through. While the film has the same spirit of its predecessors, Kung Fu Panda 3 is not a very fun film, but it is not terrible.

2.5/4.0

Chef (2014)

A Decent Feel-Good-er

[6/10 · 17 March 2016]

Chef has a lot of potential for a great story. Instead, we are left with a story that, while making us feel good, lacks quality as well as a major conflict to bring the audience into the story and build interest. The movie is a good father-son story and has heart, but simply lacks something to intrigue us.

The most exciting aspect of the film is the relationship between Favreau's character and his son. The relationship develops progressively throughout the film as it starts out with the two of them "doing stuff" together, but we learn what the kid really wants in a strange situation when Favreau asks his son to help him with Twitter. "I wish we could do stuff like this more... spend time together, talk about things" says Favreau's son. This gets Favreau's character thinking about how he can become more involved with his son, and leads to his decision to let his son help him when things go south.

The first act of this film takes forever to get through though, making the film seem slow at first, yet not exactly uninteresting. We get hints that Favreau might leave his job as a prestigious chef in a quality restaurant early on, but it takes about 40 minutes into the film to finally see this happen so we can move onto the second act: how he will dig himself out of this situation and be able to support himself.

Stories are built on conflict, and sadly there is no one big conflict in this film as much as there are a few smaller conflicts. These conflicts include questions such as will Favreau's character become closer with his son, will Favreau ever get his job back, and will he find happiness despite the situation. And rather than building up tension for these "conflicts," they get resolved slowly but gradually throughout the film. This allows the audience to focus on the relationship at the heart of the story, but it is also somewhat boring to watch since the second act of this film does not hit us hard with huge conflicts. The pace to this movie is slow, but safe.

The third act then is extremely rushed and takes roughly only a few minutes, and then the film is suddenly over right after the "climax." This is annoying if you're looking for a good story, but if you are looking to be pleased this film does just that, but in a cheesy manner. Chef is decent, but it is simply not up to par with other Favreau films like Iron Man or Elf.

2.5/4.0

To Be or Not to Be (1942)

A Hilarious Comedy that is Overlooked

[9/10 · 17 March 2016]

It is surprising how funny To Be or Not to Be actually is. It does not make a mockery of ALL Nazis seeing that the main villain is smart and cunning, but it does make buffoons out of the high command or enlisted Germans who follow orders blindly without questioning the logic behind the orders. The Germans who are fooled are fooled by nothing other than an acting troupe with Jack Benny at the helm, showing the Germans as buffoons who take in information at face value.

As the movie begins, the audience laughs at the ridiculousness of the acting troupe performing as the high command under Hitler's third Reich. This comedy is interrupted by a soldier becoming infatuated with Tura's (Jack Benny) wife to the point where he thinks they will have a future together. This relationship finishes setting up the first act, and the audience regains the gift of comic relief when it is the acting troupe who must save Tura's wife and bring down Hitler's high command as their identity is nearly compromised.

The humor in the film has a wide range. At times it consists of Jack Benny complaining, but mostly the humor deals with the dramatic irony that the German command is unaware of the acting troupe's true identity. The troupe moves along with its plans with great ease as most Germans take them as fellow Germans and do not see past the costumes. Making the Germans puzzled is almost as wacky as watching a Marx Brothers movie, but it is not exactly the same type of humor since the Marx Brothers deal with rapid-fire jokes and physical comedy such as matching action to make characters believe they are looking into a mirror. In the case of To Be or Not to Be, the actors lead the Germans to believe they are dealing with officials, creating a similar illusion to the "mirror" antics of the Marx Brothers.

An interesting notion of this film is that it was made at the time of the war, but does not induce fear of the enemy (Nazis) at any time during the film. Showing that the enemy can be imitated, and that, in fact, Hitler is "just a man with a little moustache," it illustrates how little people had to worry about the enemy at that point in time by portraying the enemy as buffoons, not unlike Chaplin's The Great Dictator.

To Be or Not to Be is a great, overlooked World War II comedy, and while it may not be up to part with The Great Dictator, it deserves more attention.

3.5/4.0

Avatar (2009)

It's Not the Ripping Off - It's the Dialogue

[8/10 · 16 March 2016]

Avatar had a lot of potential to be amazing. It is still very good, but many argue against it since it ripped off Pocahontas/Dances With Wolves. Plots from previous movies or stories have been used and re- used over and over again and we don't complain about many of them being ripped off. Shakespeare has been redone countless times and there is something new with each retelling of his work. With the retelling of Dances With Wolves via Avatar we have a Dances With Wolves for a new generation. Unfortunately, some of the dialogue and plot points are terrible, but shut your brain off and it's a fun experience.

Let's look at the world of Avatar. It's a moon of a planet in another galaxy that seems to bring our fantasies to life with foreign lifeforms beyond our imaginations - monkeys with four arms, crossbreed lifeforms that seem to combine horses with zebras, giant flying creatures that we could probably only compare to pterodactyls, and the list goes on. The plants in this universe are strange and beautiful in their own way as well. Everything on the moon seems to have a blue or green tint to it, practically force- feeding the audience the idea that this world is supposed to represent a sort of Eden. The most notable factor of this world is the human-like creatures labeled as the Na'vi can literally connect with many of the animals as well as their sacred tree through a link that ironically resembles the way digital technologies connect in this day and age. Such a world and the connection between the natives and nature preach heavily for environmentalist movements. Finally, we have to remember this world was created with digital rendering, and the world is nothing short of beautiful.

Disregarding the elaborate world-building involved in this film, the movie is filled with clichés, cheesy dialogue, and one-dimensional characters. Let's look at various ridiculous aspects of Avatar. The name of the mineral the United States businessman (played by Ribisi) is looking for is Unobtainium. Surprisingly, that is not a joke. The head of the military sanction is a one-dimensional character set out only on destroying the Na'vi since they're "savages" (according to his cheesy monologue at the start of the movie) and so that his superiors can get their hands on the Unobtainium. He trusts Sully and believes he will report to him since he used to be a marine and makes a promise to get him his real legs back - that is before his use of the Avatar allows him to enjoy running again. Dialogue coming from this character as well as from Sully and even Sigourney Weaver's character are laughable at moments, making us ask why Cameron didn't consult many co-writers.

What this movie lacks for in quality of writing, however, it makes up with heart. The ideals the Na'vi strive for seem like they have been forgotten in the real world today, and they are what draw us and Sully to them as a community. We cheer for Sully and the Na'vi in the climactic battle within the film which lives up to other great action sequences in recent years even if most of it is CGI, though this film requires heavy use of CGI throughout, so why would the action be any different?

Avatar is good; it cannot be labeled terrible simply because it takes plot points from Dances With Wolves, but it does lack quality based on its disregard for good dialogue and some underdeveloped characters.

3.0/4.0

The Departed (2006)

A Great Addition to an Amazing Filmography

[10/10 · 16 March 2016]

Any film student or film aficionado can tell you the man behind such iconic movies as Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Raging Bull: Martin Scorsese. Scorsese may often work with the same actors and direct stories around criminal life, but there is not a specific distinct style when it comes to his films as you would find with directors such as Tim Burton, John Carpenter, or Christopher Nolan. I mean, how can you compare Hugo to Casino stylistically? What IS behind a lot of Scorsese's films is great storytelling, and The Departed is no different. Though Scorsese deserved an Oscar long before 2007, The Departed lives among some of his greatest work.

While it may not be a very diverse ensemble, the cast in this film is simply phenomenal. It consists of iconic white male actors both old and young pulling off their roles as cops and gang members perfectly, and Vera Farmiga doing a "good enough" job as a therapist for young cops and undercover workers. While Mark Wahlberg earned himself a deserving nomination for best supporting actor, the actor who steals the show is Leonardo DiCaprio, who probably would have also received a nomination if he had not worked on Blood Diamond the same exact year. We don't know whether to be terrified of Costello (Jack Nicholson) or if we should nervously giggle at his dark sense of humor, Alec Baldwin is at his A-game as an excitable investigator, Matt Damon is Boston personified, and Martin Sheen reminds us why he shouldn't be associated with Charlie Sheen in this day and age. Phenomenal work all around, and one last note is as odd as this may sound, Mark Wahlberg excels at swearing in this film. Funny s***.

Based on the foreign script "Infernal Affairs" (which this critic is eager to watch) The Departed is unsubtle in its focus on "rats," double agents both in the Irish mafia of Boston as well as the state police force. Matt Damon is a man who was practically raised by Frank Costello to become a rat within the state police while Leonardo DiCaprio plays a young man who grew up in a notorious family who wants to turn his life around by becoming a true cop. Nobody would believe him in a uniform, so Sheen and Wahlberg ask him to gain Costello's trust and he becomes a rat within Costello's gang.

Morality is what is at stake in The Departed. The morality of lying is the most notable since the film is focused on double agents, but even the love triangle developed between Damon, DiCaprio, and Farmiga brings this into question. DiCaprio tries to get under Farmiga's skin at first asking if she lies in general, and as she gets closer to him she confesses that she would lie if her boyfriend (Damon) saw her together with DiCaprio. As we realize that Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio are not the only "rats" in the story, it brings not only the morality of lying into question, but also it calls for the audience to ask how we can determine who is on which side of the law. Is there a line? Is the law black and white? Or are there exceptions when it comes to double agents?

While the narrative is amazing, it is important to note that this film is littered with swearing and violence, so keep that in mind if you're sensitive to these issues or if you are considering letting a child view this movie. Regarding these same issues, do NOT watch this film on cable TV as it is censored to the point where the dialogue becomes ridiculous and you cannot take the film seriously. Other than that, this film should one day become a required screening in college level film courses; a true masterpiece.

4.0/4.0

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

More Disturbing than "Scary"

[8/10 · 1 March 2016]

What a good directorial debut. The Witch is a solid film by Robert Eggers. Set in colonial times in America, the story is one of a family that is exiled from a village. The family chooses to settle near the woods in which many strange things occur, the first being the disappearance of the baby of the family.

The eldest daughter of the family is cautious when it comes to the woods, but that doesn't mean she can't get good fun out of teasing her little sister that she is the infamous witch of the woods. This little sister and her twin brother take this jest too seriously, and eventually inform their parents of this incident. That being said, supernatural forces are at play among the family at the core of the movie, and tensions are raised and the family members are against each other as possible demons.

Some may find trouble keeping up with the Old English used in the film, but it seems easy enough to understand when you compare it to Shakespeare's works (even with modern adaptations such as Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing"). The person who uses this type of the language the most is the father, William, played by Ralph Ineson. Ineson steals the show even when the audience cannot fully comprehend what he is saying (it is easy to get the general idea though). His performance is probably one of the best aspects of this film, other than the lack of great color variety that truly sets the mood for this film.

In terms of "horror" films, this movie does not produce many jump scares, and is instead just disturbing in content, making it comparable to films like The Shining or perhaps Rosemary's Baby. With the family accusing each other, elements of The Thing also come into play. A solid film when it comes to technicality and the horror genre in general, but it could have used a bit more story and more clarification about the demons at play in this film.

3.0/4.0

Grindhouse (2007)

Decent Effort by Rodriguez and Tarantino

[8/10 · 26 February 2016]

Grindhouse is a rare experience since double features are not regularly made nowadays. The style that was put into making this double feature particularly makes it feel like two older movies (perhaps from the 70s) but with contemporary actors we know and love like Bruce Willis, Josh Brolin, and Rosario Dawson to name a few. Together, Planet Terror and Death Proof bring an interesting experience to viewers. Separately, each is a good (but not great) B movie.

What worked for Planet Terror: it is awesome as a "disease" or "outbreak" movie. Even though the film is generally darkly lit, the killing of the infected proves to be action-packed and very bloody (did Tarantino ghost direct certain parts)? Wray is a really cool character with a clear expertise on guns and a great shooter. Cherry is good as well, but a little more bland than Wray. While the coolest aspect of the film has to be when Cherry gains a gun for a leg it defies the logic of her knowing how to operate it without pulling a trigger of any sorts. Also, it does not seem to run out of ammo. But this logic is somewhat irrelevant since it is clear Planet Terror was made for fun.

What worked for Death Proof: Tarantino is at it again with conversations that connect dots between various situations. For example, in the first half of the film a girl is told to do a lap- dance for the first man who says something specific to her, and her friends urge her not to be "chickens***." When Kurt Russell tries this on this same girl later in the film, he makes an analogy to the common phrase "in my book" and threatens to put this girl under "chickens***" in his "book." Unlike most Tarantino movies, however, it lacks substance, and at its most basic, Death Proof is about Kurt Russell tracking two sets of girls - one in the first half and another in the second half. Even with Tarantino-esque dialogue, this segment falls short of great, but Kurt Russell's performance in this movie is convincing and impressive.

It is a fun experience to watch this double feature, but do not expect to watch two masterpieces by any means.

3.0/4.0

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Style Over Substance

[7/10 · 26 February 2016]

Scott Pilgrim is good fun from director Edgar Wright. The cinematography and visual effects really capture the video game feel of the movie perfectly. That being said, the intended audience for this film seems a little more limited than Wright's "Cornetto" trilogy - this movie has created a cult following by the younger generation or anybody who loves classic video games, but the focus on Canadian teenagers and the many homages to video games makes this story less relatable than any of the films in the Cornetto trilogy.

Towards the beginning of the story we sympathize with Scott's young girlfriend, Knives, who seems like such a good kid and makes us wonder how Scott can break this girl's hot. Well there's the answer - a mysterious girl Scott's own age with pink hair who he is simply more attracted to and starts stalking (not to an extreme level though). Many references to past girlfriends, however, makes us wonder how Scott is such a stud since he is played by Michael Cera.

The premise is interesting and is obviously video-game-inspired: defeat Ramona's seven evil exes to continue dating her. The way this plot is revealed does not seem forced either, as Scott is unexpectedly attacked by the first ex while he is still juggling Knives and Ramona and has no idea what is going on.

Aside from the great action sequences littered with jokes and references to video games, the overall humor of the film is its greatest highlight. Michael Cera may be quirky and a bit of a geek, but it is in a lovable manner. Scott's roommate is gay, but not just for the sake of being gay - he is able to turn straight guys gay with little explanation, and it is also funny to see Scott and him to share the same bed (mattress) making us question Scott's sexuality.

Even the supporting cast is well cast with big names like Mae Whitman and Chris Evans, who each prove to be great caricatures for Scott/Ramona to fight. Chris Evans' scene may be the best scene of the whole film - he plays his part perfectly and draws big laughs as an overly macho actor.

What this film lacks is great substance. It may be a great romantic comedy for its comedy, but the romance is not well-executed. Not only that, but the film constantly makes the audience question which girl Scott should pursue, Knives or Ramona, and it seems odd that Scott would go to such great lengths to "save" Ramona when Knives seems to be the better person by default. The only gratification that comes from Scott wanting to break up with Knives is the fact that he no longer has a creepy relationship (she is only 17). But in early scenes within the film, no matter how creepy this relationship, it is clear the two were made for each other. Oh well.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World immerses the audience in its great style, but the story is hindered by its lack of substance.

3.0/4.0

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Hands Down One of the Funniest Movies Ever

[9/10 · 25 February 2016]

When it comes to comedies, they tend to be hit-or-miss movies. The sense of humor that goes into comedies reaches some audiences while others find it distasteful. That being said, it can be safely said that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a comedy for virtually everyone. It is even a good experience for children since there is really only one suggestive scene and it is very brief.

Nearly every scene in this film is comic gold and very quotable. Who can forget the black night remarking "'tis but a flesh wound," the holy hand grenade, or even the opening scene (are you suggesting coconuts migrate)? Even great historical allusions are made for humor, such as a reference to the idea of the Trojan horse.

The film also has a great sense of self-awareness and is very meta. The narrator comments on the animator at one point, a woman dressed in white refers to the script of the film, and the characters refer to specific scenes from earlier in the film. This is all in good fun and its self-awareness is primarily meant to add to the humor rather than commenting on art in general which more "serious" meta texts tend to do.

However, this is a strange film when you take into account that from time to time in the film historians appear to briefly comment on the time period and are disregarded the next second as well as other people that are clearly not from the medieval time period becoming involved in the film. This aspect causes the film to end very strangely and abruptly. Monty Python and the Holy Grail would be stronger if it had a more definitive conclusion than the one it does.

Filled with comedic gold, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a very enjoyable experience.

3.5/4.0

Creed (II) (2015)

New Life to the Cinematic Universe

[9/10 · 21 February 2016]

Creed is the Rocky of this generation. It is sensational with great performances and amazing direction and cinematography. Seeing some of the original Rocky movies will give you good context for this film, though not the entire series is great.

Creed, on the other hand, is a compelling continuation of the Balboa universe with new energy. A conflicted Adonis who would fight in his youth before realizing his father was the famous Apollo Creed seems a wreck when he becomes an adult, traveling to Mexico repeatedly in order to make extra money fighting every now and then. He becomes arrogant and angry when people from Apollo's gym will not train him and learns a lesson that being a great fighter comes more from nurture than nature.

Even though Adonis is privileged to be living with his late father's wife, he makes the decision to abandon that life which lacks excitement to find Rocky Balboa in Philadelphia. He figures he can receive training from Rocky since he was Apollo's friend, and with a little effort he's right.

What's great about this film is the conflicted Adonis played the up and coming Michael B Jordan, from great stuff like The Wire and Fruitvale Station. He plays the son of Creed, but he is more than that. This very notion is what makes him such a conflicted character - throughout the film he is struggling over his need to become his father as well as his need to create his own legacy simultaneously. He has too much pride to take up his father's name in the ring specifically because it will make the public have high expectations for him.

In the film, Adonis' relationship with Rocky proves to be a great cinematic relationship not just within the Balboa universe, but a great relationship in cinema in general. The two of them redefine what it means to be family and this relationship is made that more convincing due to the great strength of both of these actors (Jordan and Stallone). Jordan got snubbed of an Oscar nomination.

The most brilliant scene in the movie is when Adonis fights his 16th fight. Pay attention because the entire scene is done in one amazing long take with such complex camera movement and direction, and man, does it feel perfect.

The biggest flaw of the film is that it seems to steal plot points from Rocky. It is not an identical film, but the main beats are very similar. But looking at 2015 as a whole, this is definitely one of the better films.

3.5/4.0

Son of Saul (2015)

Can a WWII Movie Ever go Wrong?

[9/10 · 21 February 2016]

Seeing this movie is like watching Elephant by Gus Van Sant (in terms of the visual style), but maybe five times more depressing. A lot of the film is done in long takes where we follow Saul's perspective from behind his head as he navigates his complex journey, interweaving between various work groups in different concentration camps.

What is both great and confusing about the movie is that the plot points are touched on very briefly. The way that conversations take place in Son of Saul are naturalistic: since the characters are aware of what they are talking about and planning, things are not overly explained, allowing the audience to fill in the information not given to them. The general ideas of the plot points are easy to follow, but multiple viewings may be required to FULLY register what is happening.

The film takes place in a matter of about a day and a half, and while the movie only runs at less than two hours, with all the long takes the movie feels close to running in "real time." Because of these elaborate long takes like in The Revenant, released the same year, we have to admire the direction and choreography involved in all of these long takes, especially considering the large amounts of extras used in the film to make it feel authentic.

This isn't a traditional narrative as far as cinema goes, but it is a great one. People die without much attention focused on each death: the characters move on, but isn't that closer to authenticity? To reality? It's been done before in films like Saving Private Ryan and Children of Men and it encapsulates the sad reality of death in war: it happens and there is nothing to do about it. This being said, some may not like the protagonist, Saul, for similar reasons, but then again this is not an uplifting movie by any means.

One last note: the film has a 4:3 ratio rather than what has become the standard: either 16:9 or 2.35:1, but this does not make the film worse by any means. This is a great foreign film from the 2010's.

3.5/4.0

Lazer Team (2015)

It Will Make You Feel Dumber For Watching

[2/10 · 20 February 2016]

It's difficult to know what to expect from a feature film by Rooster Teeth since they are a Youtube sensation with shows created using video games, most notably Red vs Blue. Upon viewing Lazer Team it is clear they should stick to what they were doing before and not attempt live-action movies ever again.

The one good thing about this film is that it is funny on occasion, sometimes because there are decent jokes, but most of the time because it is just plain bad. A lot of the jokes in the film fall flat, and some of them are so terrible it makes you wonder what you're watching in the first place.

The acting and casting decisions are far from good (though it's clear the people from Rooster Teeth wanted to cast who they are familiar with). Each character is more like a caricature than a character you want to relate to. The main character's daughter is both a terrible character and terribly cast - she is literally the stereotypical dumb blonde teenager who adds pretty much nothing to the film. It is also disappointing to see Alan Ritchson in a role where he literally just coaches the team in a monotonous voice and stands there to look like the warrior he was bred to be.

Finally, the CGI in this film is beyond terrible. Holograms are made to look more like cartoons than believable representations of aliens. This is astounding coming from a team who specializes in making shows from video games, although that doesn't necessarily mean they know how to create good digital effects. Do yourself the favor and avoid this movie.

1.0/4.0

Timecode (2000)

Don't Get Your Hopes Up

[5/10 · 19 February 2016]

The idea for Timecode is an excellent idea and it seems like such a concept could have amazing potential. Sadly, it simply does not have the greatness to make it a memorable revolutionary film. Sure, this concept has never been done before, but it doesn't make up for the fact that the film tells a boring story and feels more like a video than a prestigious film.

It is extremely difficult to follow all four screens throughout the duration of the film. Not all screens focus on a specific story, but certain stories are made less important than others which is disappointing with this film trying to be a good web-life film as well as the first to capture real time from four cameras.

The audio mixing definitely manipulates the way the audience attempts to watch the film. Certain dialogue is tuned down so that only one or two screens can be heard and which have more "importance" than the others at certain times in the film. This may help to focus on what is essential in each moment, but overall all information within a story should be essential, so when some of that information is tuned out it can be an aggravating experience and not enjoyable.

This is a failed experiment to change cinema forever.

2.0/4.0

If.... (1968)

Good, Strange, but You Don't NEED to See It

[7/10 · 19 February 2016]

If.... is a strange film since it seems to be on the border between the mainstream and the art film. It is definitely experimental in terms of its use of color as well as not being necessarily clear about whether certain moments of the film are fantasy for the characters (though some moments simply MUST be).

For those familiar with a Clockwork Orange, it is made clear by this film why Kubrick made the casting decision of Malcolm McDowell for the famous anti-hero Alexander DeLarge. Malcolm McDowell is the driving force behind the film If.... even though he does not appear in every scene. He is wonderful with his disregard for the rules made to oppress himself and his classmates, and he pulls off this rebellious attitude with a convincing smart mouth and a bit of repressed evil.

The theme of rebellion is practically shouted within this movie. When McDowell's character enters the story, he wears a cloth around his face and his classmates jokingly refer to him as Guy Faux, who you might remember as V's main inspiration in V for Vendetta. He and his closest friends are also constantly being punished throughout the film for acting against such seemingly unnecessary rules. But this is the environment they are brought up in - it is a private school for the upper-class in which they live and the adults will shape them to become upper-class adults through the means of rough discipline which at some points can arguably be described as abuse.

The room in which Mick Travis (McDowell) and his closest friends hang out is also filled with photos focusing on rebellion. These photos come from various revolutions or wars, so most of the photos depict heroes (if you want to call them that) fighting in military battles.

A sub-theme of this film seems to be repressed homosexuality. Rumors of a certain boy amongst the group claim he is homosexual, and this boy is given a scene where he focuses his attention on an upper- class-man exercising his gymnastic abilities. There is very little room for reading this scene as anything other than longing for the older boy, and it is a true example of the male gaze in cinema. Also, this is revisited later when the two boys are in the same bed together, smiling at each other with their shirts off.

What is strange about this film is that there are moments of black and white footage, and these scenes do not seem to have a pattern. A lot of them are moments that are clearly within the diegesis of the film while others represent fantasy sequences - these fantasy sequences seem to be when the focus is on Mick Travis. But as said before, there is no true pattern as normal events and strange ones alike take the aesthetic of being shot in black and white, so it is peculiar why the director shot any sequence in color at all.

Finally, if you are very sensitive or get offended easily this is not the film for you - the ending which the film builds up to is extremely disturbing.

3.0/4.0

Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Ben Affleck's Masterpiece

[10/10 · 18 February 2016]

What a truly great mystery. Gone Baby Gone has all the elements any good mystery story should have - misdirection, crazy twists and turns, and bloodshed (just to add to the excitement). The all-star cast especially elevates Gone Baby Gone to heights that exceed most mysteries and thrillers produced in this day and age.

The person who earned this film an Oscar nomination: Amy Ryan. Rightfully so. Appearing in supporting roles in both The Office and The Wire, Amy Ryan goes well out of her comfort zone to play a druggie coked out of her mind, conflicted emotionally over her missing child (at points she can care less, at others it is heartbreaking how she takes it). It is difficult not to marvel at Ryan's performance; she is completely believable as being psychologically disturbed which is rare from an actress who is sane in her other roles (well, at least in The Wire). It is very difficult to pull off being a convincing drug addict, and Ryan is arguably the best part of this film.

The plot is on and off at points; in the first half of the film it is easy to notice that something seems "off," but it is hard to put a finger on it, making the audience question the events as a good mystery should. The outcome of a mystery should be a surprise, but you don't want to keep the audience completely in the dark if you want the outcome to seem plausible. However, the logic of the situations in the first half of Gone Baby Gone does not add up in ways that are too obvious.

What makes up for this? Practically everything else about the film. The story eventually gets to a point where the morality of certain situations and choices is questioned by both the characters and the audience, and with good reason too. Movies are meant to be about the human condition, and when you have a film like Gone Baby Gone pose difficult questions of what is ethical, or what the greater good is in certain situations, you have an outstanding movie (and it helps when the twist of any mystery is very unexpected).

Gone Baby Gone is an overlooked work by Ben Affleck. It is his best film, but it did not get the recognition it deserved when it was released.

4.0/4.0

The Big Sleep (1946)

Well-Done but Not Entertaining

[7/10 · 16 February 2016]

The Big Sleep is too complex for one viewing alone; you will have to give it two viewings or more. On first viewing though, it is difficult to follow the many characters and situations (killings, blackmail, romances) and will have you scratching your head instead of enjoying the film. The main thing to take away is that Marlowe and Vivian are falling in love slowly but gradually throughout the film.

Nothing against Hawks here; there is great direction in every scene and the acting is beyond phenomenal. The screenwriters deserve appraisal as well since they have put together a very intricate story which happens to work, even if you can't decipher it on first viewing. Films that make the audience have to think and pay attention usually deserve merit; look at the television show The Wire, for instance. Every detail is there for a reason even if it is difficult to grasp on first viewing. However, with a television show it is easy to fill in gaps of what you may miss in the scenes or even the episodes to follow, but with a film that is just under two hours and as complex as The Big Sleep you NEED to rewatch it. Films with rewatchability is one thing, but films that require you to rewatch them are not necessarily fun experiences. Important maybe, but not fun.

Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall are very convincing in their roles. They make the film bearable to watch. There is also some excitement in the film as there are little bits of action when you hear a gunshot or see somebody gunned down. With this film being somewhat action- oriented it makes up for the fact that you cannot follow the plot the first time (but only slightly).

Give this film a shot if it sounds like something you might revisit, but do not be surprised if you're scratching your head through the duration of the film.

3.0/4.0

Deadpool (2016)

Funniest Comic Book Movie in a Long Time

[8/10 · 13 February 2016]

If there's one thing Deadpool does, it is entertaining the audience. It breaks the fourth wall constantly, which any how-to-write-a- screenplay book would surely suggest not to do as it defeats the illusion of the movie to do this. But this is not just any movie. This is Deadpool.

Ryan Reynolds is the perfect choice of casting to play the titular character. His quip constantly hits the audience blow after blow to prove for a very likable superhero (though he wouldn't call himself a hero). He may be in the suit, but it is his voice acting which really captures the essence of Deadpool. You can undoubtedly hear the sarcasm or the attitude that comes with all of his one liners.

The movie is balanced in the sense that it flips back and forth between chronology, rather than have all the exposition packed into the first half hour and follow the character on a linear path to him becoming the super human he becomes. Instead we have to ask questions as an audience, and Deadpool promises he will reveal the answers in flashbacks, or rather with inter-cutting within the film.

Sadly, pretty much all of the cool action is revealed in the red band trailers of the film, which has us wanting more surprises which we never get. Overall, the film seems to only have 2 key action sequences on top of that, meaning this film is more about the origin story than it is about delivering theatrics, although that is probably the point since is the first Deadpool film (please let there be sequels!) Another disappointing aspect is the fact that the CGI for the character Colossus is not that great.

Deadpool is a fun experience, and it will have you asking whether all the fourth-wall-breaking makes it a more enjoyable experience as a Marvel movie.

3.0/4.0

Lost in Translation (2003)

Great Film, Some Argue little Narrative

[9/10 · 13 February 2016]

After reading several articles/reviews on the film, scholars seem to agree on one key factor of the film: the aesthetics create a feeling of dislocation and anxiety for the viewer. Well, at least at the start of the film. We need to watch Lost in Translation in its entirety to move from this state of anxiety to a sort of peace of mind; this film definitely toys with emotion in a brilliant manner.

There are many romance stories that happen in countries outside of the US - there is especially the cliché of setting romantic stories in Paris, France. Setting one in Tokyo, however, puts American audiences in a place that seems a very long way from home since the atmosphere is so different than American culture. It also doesn't help when the only other Americans in the movie hang out at the hotel lounge where Charlotte (Johansson) sees Bob (Murray) for the first time in the film. These characters explore the city which gives them a sense of escape when they feel trapped in this foreign land.

It is clear in the first 15 minutes of the film that each of these leads feel imprisoned or disconnected in this strange land - Charlotte makes a phone call in which she tries to reveal this disconnection while in tears, but the woman on the other end doesn't hear this in her voice. Bob is visiting Tokyo to make money for a whiskey commercial while he would rather be doing something with more dignity, like a play back in the states. Both characters are married, but when they begin communicating and spending time with each other, each character seems to be a little more complete than before.

If looking at this movie from a narrative perspective, this seems to have a lot of the traditional second act while it rushes through act one and act three feels more ambiguous than complete for some. It still follows the traditional three act structure, but other scholars do not see it that way. There is definitely more exploration with the aesthetics of the film than there is a cohesive story, but the story is still there. To get outside of narrative you have to watch something that is practically ONLY immersed in mood/visuals such as The Tree of Life.

The acting is top notch in this film, and the casting of Bill Murray is a great choice. While this may seem more of a melodrama than a romantic comedy, the comedy is still there, and Murray's screen persona fits the character of Bob Harris perfectly. Johansson is also great in one of her early roles, almost hopeless when her character feels she is no longer connecting with her husband.

Definitely not your typical rom/com, but it would be a shame to miss.

3.5/4.0

Blue Mountain State: The Rise of Thadland (2016)

This Will be the Worst of 2016

[2/10 · 13 February 2016]

This never seemed possible, but The Rise of Thadland is an even worse comedy than The Hangover Part II. It is raunchy only for the sake of trying to be funny, it is disgusting only for the sake of attempting to create shock humor, and there just simply isn't the energy in this movie which the television show had to offer.

The premise is so straightforward and simple that it gets to be a bore right after Thadland actually becomes a thing. Moran needs to win over Thad for him to buy the goathouse so it doesn't get taken away for them. Thad's request is simple: throw an awesome party for him and he'll put up enough money to win the goathouse over in the auction. The bulk of the movie is this party Moran agrees to throw, making most of the humor in the movie drug-related. We watch people trip out on drugs for the comedy, which ends up being a bore and not funny at all. Also, it is clear which part of the movie has an extended nc-17 clip in the bonus features, and it is too disgusting to imagine how the nc-17 version would have looked and not funny at all.

Of course Alan Ritchson as Thad shines as the star of the movie, though he is not the protagonist. He delivers the same goof ball we are all fond of in the television show, but the script just didn't allow him to shine AS MUCH as he did in the television series. The best moments focus around him, but sadly there are less than a handful of these moments.

There is no way that anything released in 2016 will be as terrible as this film.

1.0/4.0

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

Reminiscent of The Marx Brothers

[8/10 · 12 February 2016]

A Hard Day's Night packs a lot of fun into a movie. Some critics say this film is part documentary, to which I saw just because the famous group plays themselves doesn't make A Hard Day's Night a documentary. It is a quirky comedy and a musical that tries to capture the essence of The Beatles, one of the most influential bands in history.

It is enjoyable how many comedic bits this movie is made of. Although it is definitely not the same type of humor throughout the film, some of it seems to pay homage to the Marx brothers. The comedy is all situational or dialogue-based, but none of it seems to be slapstick humor which comes into play only a few times in Marx brothers films. Though you don't find the urge to laugh at it, the first conversation of the film is amusing; Paul McCartney insists the man they sit with on a train is his grandfather, explaining "I'm entitled to two, aren't I" when the other Beatles insist they have seen his grandfather before. It is also amusing when the Beatles never seem to react much to things their managers get into a fuss over.

Although it touches on it only in a few parts, this movie also has great commentary on social class. A few minutes into the film, an older gentleman of the upper class shares the train carriage with the Beatles and he is immediately snobby to fit the conditions to his needs, which means the Beatles can't have the window open or listen to their radio. Then, inexplicably, The Beatles are running beside the train asking for their ball back, a great analogy of the situation.

Obviously the music in the film must be given thought to as well. The music is simply there when it is used and does not really contribute much to the story. However, the energy of the Beatles is captured with the opening credit sequence in which A Hard Day's Night is playing as well as in a scene with Can't Buy me Love when the four Beatles run around a field with a helipad to escape their "imprisonment due to fame" if only for a brief moment. Some of the music is just there, and some of it conveys energy.

The story is definitely not the highlight of the film. It is reflective of the Beatles' life as a band - the reason some may consider it a documentary - but it truly is not a documentary in any sense. It is a fictional story constructed around the idea that the band has an important performance to give. Don't set expectations high for a great story here because it is very straightforward.

A Hard Day's Night still has a good sense of energy and a lot of comedy, making this "Beatles movie" a delight to watch.

3.0/4.0

Billy Liar (1963)

An Interesting Take on Fantasy Conflicting with Reality

[9/10 · 7 February 2016]

Billy Liar is a very unique character study that is already in your face at the very start of the film. As Billy called downstairs to eat, he can't help lying in bed for a few minutes longer to fantasize about him being in an era of war, missing an arm and being a war hero.

His distracted personality keeps him unorganized and lazy when it comes to work. Billy has failed to post calendars and we see them all shoved into a cabinet in his room, revealing he never intended to do something that was essential for his job. He lives with his family though he has a job that is above the lower-working class: he works at a funeral parlor.

Billy has a dream to become a script-writer for a famous comedian, and he talks about it as if it was a certainty that he would get the job, though when he calls their office the secretary explains the man was not expecting a call from Billy, but Billy plays it off while people are listening that this comedian is eagerly awaiting him. Thus we see he cannot face the reality of the situation, and this amongst many other lies earns him his titular label: Billy Liar.

Billy also doesn't know what he wants in a relationship, so he lies to two different girls he is dating that each are the only one in his life, and from what the girls say it sounds like he is engaged to both of them. Billy has to hide behind his lies because he simply doesn't know how to interact with other people.

His constant daydreaming is the highlight of the film, hitting home the fact that he is living in his own fantasy world while he can't face the reality of his disappointing life. He lies to his family and friends, but when those lies are spread in public Billy can't take it and becomes embarrassed. This is a very good film both about fantasy and realism and they affect the central character.

3.5/4.0

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Not a Fan of the Style, Still Enjoyable

[7/10 · 7 February 2016]

The Nightmare Before Christmas proves to be such a unique concept for a family movie. This fantasy story suggests that each holiday has a world of its own outside the boundaries of society, and two of those worlds collide in this movie: Halloweentown and Christmastown. The result creates an entertaining story of discovery and exploration.

Meet Jack Skellington. Though he is not the mayor of Halloweentown, he has a huge influence over the inhabitants as he practically runs Halloween. Something is missing in his life though, and nobody can understand this except for Sally, a woman held together by stitches who is basically a slave to her creator. When Jack comes across Christmastown by mistake it gives him a sense of great wonder and hope. Sadly, when he tries to explain his feeling of warmth and happiness this world has created for him, the inhabitants of Halloweentown are only interested in whether the holiday Christmas has any scary aspects.

The premise is very unique and sends a good message to children. However, while the story may be intriguing the dialogue seems to be simplified in order to target the attention span of children whereas good family films would challenge children to grasp dialogue with intentions that do not involve moving the plot forward or dialogue with vocabulary that is challenging to them. The way conversations or dialogue is handled in this film is slightly better than dialogue in The Polar Express (which isn't saying much).

The art direction of the film is not for everyone, but while it is dark it is not creepy enough to scare children easily. Well, maybe very little children, but certain characters like Jack or the goofy mayor with two faces keep children distracted from the Gothic style of the movie.

The best aspect of The Nightmare Before Christmas by far is the music. Each musical number is given great attention by Danny Elfman and the other writers and proves to be a very effective story- telling device within the film. If there's anything the audience will remember walking out of the film it would undoubtedly be either Jack's sad song about lacking meaning in his life, or the very upbeat and popular "What's This?"

This isn't your typical family film, but it has redeeming qualities and proves to be a very good musical.

3.0/4.0

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Interesting, Just Not Up to Coen Brothers Caliber

[7/10 · 6 February 2016]

This movie has a great ensemble cast, but it is a shame that some of the characters that have great potential are not followed throughout the entirety of the film. We tend to stick to a few key characters, and it is a shame we have strong actors like Scarlett Johansson who do not receive a lot of screen time even though they make up the ensemble cast.

As this was advertised as a comedy it would have been nice to see more humor in the movie, though even though there are a few key moments that are funny, all of these moments are hilarious. A lot of these moments happen to be focused around a character named Hobie who is an action-star-turned-speaking-actor, and his interaction with Ralph Fiennes proves to be comedic gold. Also, pay attention for a segment with the premiere of a movie Hobie stars in called "Lazy Ol' Moon." It makes older movies look like caricatures.

What holds the film together is that while it is made up of an ensemble cast, there are only a few stories to follow, so it is difficult to get lost in these stories. Some of the stories are more enticing than the others, however, but you will find them to be intertwined so it all makes sense.

The direction of this movie still shows the Coen brothers are strong directors. The movie looks brilliant, the art direction makes it very believable that we are experiencing old Hollywood, and there are extremely well-choreographed and well-executed sequences. This is a good Coen brothers films, but it is not that high on the list compared to the rest of their canon.

3.0/4.0

A Taste of Honey (1961)

Boring

[5/10 · 6 February 2016]

In A Taste of Honey, nothing really proves to be that memorable. The story fails to excite, none of the characters are relatable or interesting, and the relationship between the protagonist Jo and her mother is annoying.

Jo is on the edge of poverty and has a conflicting relationship with her single mother. She tries to connect, but her mother is too busy trying to get with a man named Peter at the fair, and since Peter finds Jo to be a nuisance he doesn't want her there which is a dilemma for Jo's mother. Really sad stuff, I know....

Jo doesn't find love in her family, but she finds love elsewhere when she becomes acquainted with a black sailor who is about her age and shows genuine interest in her. This is the only happiness Jo can find in her life, so she cherishes it until the sailor must leave. Eventually she confides in a new friend who happens to be gay and depends on him with her mother practically abandoning her. Eventually though, Jo finds herself in a position where she needs advice from an adult, and she doesn't know what to do since her relationship with her mother is so conflicted.

Some redeeming qualities are the acting in the film as well as the treatment of mise-en-scene, but overall the movie is simply a bore.

2.0/4.0

Jerry Maguire (1996)

Very Easy to Watch

[9/10 · 6 February 2016]

Jerry Maguire is not a perfect movie in the sense that it is a masterpiece, but it seems difficult to dislike this movie. Despite being rated R for some swearing and sexual content, this movie deals with the notion of family and is definitely easy enough for a child to watch. It is very entertaining while it is simultaneously a touching story about relationships and their importance in our lives.

More than anything, Jerry Maguire is a film with heart. It can be argued that it has two protagonists: Jerry and Rod (played by Cuba Gooding Jr.) and both seem to need to learn about love. Jerry needs to connect to people, specifically to those who he claims to love, and Cuba needs to learn to play his sport with love and not just for the money. It is brilliant in the sense that Maguire's story and Rod's story are intertwined since the two depend on each other. Maguire is all about making relationships with clients more personal while Rod is all about wanting Jerry to pay attention to his needs. One is the professional, the other is the greedy showboat. Ultimately, they both depend on each other since Rod is Jerry's last client and since Jerry might be the only agent willing to put up with Rod's ego.

The film is well-acted, especially by Cuba Gooding Jr., and we like each character for different reasons. The kids in this film are adorable, especially Ray, Dorothy's son, who proves to be funny even though we know he is the reason Jerry wants to get together with Dorothy.

Half a sports film and half a romance, Jerry Maguire proves to be fun for a variety of people.

3.5/4.0